Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lock

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Just noting that for many subjects, a straight Google is not an adequate search for sources. That's why there are all of these links at the top of the AFD to other databases but some participants take things further in other AFDs and search for foreign language periodicals. But often regular Google is insufficient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lock

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I Googled the guy and could find basically nothing. As far as I can tell this topic does not meet the WP:SIGCOV criteria. Surtsicna (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and England. Surtsicna (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't searched for sources yet, he might not be notable, but this doesn't seem like someone for whom searching google would be a very effective way of searching. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Where could we expect to find significant coverage of him? Surtsicna (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books, old news articles for the region, the like. Google is bad for people like this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Archdeacons are not inherently notable and my search of sources show the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Unlike bishops, archdeacons are not automatically notable. I looked at Google books, and there seems to be more references to a different person with a similar name and to a canal feature, rather than him. Please ping me if you find anything more. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.